Posted by
CRB on Monday, October 06, 2008 12:51:13 PM
Did you know that thought are the same as ethnicity? That's right -- what you think is determined by the color of your skin or your other ethnic features. At least that's the most recent complaint from the nut cases on the Left. According to the Associated Press:
Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge, by Douglass K. Daniel, Associated Press Writer:
Palin’s words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?
In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.
Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.
Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain’s purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright’s sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America’s promise to treat all people equally.
John McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for opposing a holiday to honor Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol.
When the 2008 campaign is over McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more so if he wins. (emphasis mine)
Two fundamental falsehood are clear, and highlighted. First, there is no appeal that confronts racism by Palin (or McCain) that refers to skin color. None. Second, what potential? Questioning a person's world view is in no way an attack on that person's patriotism. But Daniel is not afraid to take either of these trapezic leaps in illogic.
There is no leap in logic here, as per the acrobatics of Mr. Daniel. Instead the position depends upon a classification. Let's begin with a fundamental concern: What determines how a person sees the world? Does skin color determine thought? Does culture determine thought? Is a person free to think outside of these constraints?
As the Left answers these quesitons there is a necessary result: If Obama sees things differently then it must involve something about his race, because we know that he cannot think for himself. (Without this link there can be no presumption of racism.) This is a predictable and always visible component of popular Liberal / Leftist rhetoric -- you are trapped in your world and you are not free. FDR stated this plainly when he declared that a necessitious man is not free -- any person with unmet needs, who is driven to meet those needs, is not free becuase he is driven by something other than his own sense of self. To the Left only socialism is freedom but you are not free in your own right
Society is seen by the Left as mere blocks of ethnic and class divisions. I hope this makes clear why their rhetoric makes persistent appeal to class envy and class warfare. For the Left it is necessary that we are not self-responsible but always exist with a dependence on some type of government-managed "safety net" to protect us. This safety net exists because some one has some thing that you and I may not, so it is taken and redistributed as the government sees fit. And the envy continues into all areas of life, leaving conflict and envy as the social construct necessary to their ends.
By maintaining this separateness they also maintain and reinforce ethnic and class hostility. How, you ask? There are several current items on the Left's talking-points list that meet this criteria. Here are two:
1. Gay marriage. Heterosexuals have something you do not, and you deserve it. Pity the poor gay couple and give them what the need.
2. Digital divide. Those rich white folks got rich because they have computers and Internet access and you do not. Pity the poor and give them what they need.
Yet while they perform these very acts of racism they blame others for this same wrong and willingly lie about it, as shown above. They divide society into managable blocks that are easier to manipulate. Let us not be fooled -- those who want greater power must find a method to reinforce that power. This is why they do not want free speech in the churches -- we might speak against them and their abuses. It is a movement against which the church must speak both immediately and loudly. Hang the 501(c)(3) and do what is right.